What I don't get is how people can look at the rampant poverty in the world and still preach against contraception, abortion rights, and sex education. Its like they don't give a crap about what happens after the babies get here and they certainly don't give a crap about the mothers.In Africa where the problem of poverty is really obvious various churches conduct "missionary" activities where the primary concern is giving out Bibles, preaching against homosexuality, and opposing contraception. Do these folks not see that they are causing *real* suffering? And now in places like Uganga we're seeing a surge of radical Fundamentalism because of these jerkoff Americans who go over there and "preach God's word", which apparently is ok with sick and dying kids as long as Jesus gets his due.

This post demonstrates so many points that have already been made.

Otherwise intellegent people that will lay logic aside and argue against reason in order to lash out at Chrisianity. Then they accuse everyone else of being motivated by hate.

"Nine out of ten child HIV sufferers are Africans and there are 11.4 million orphans from the disease.

Here’s where it becomes controversial. The Church opposes sex outside of marriage as well as the use of contraception.....

Pope Benedict XVI made his anti-condom stance clear shortly after becoming pontiff in 2005, when he addressed bishops from South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland, Namibia and Lesotho at the Vatican in Rome.

He said AIDS won’t be cured with condoms but by the traditional teachings of the Church including sexual abstinence and fidelity. He reiterated the remarks during a visit to Africa in 2009, outraging health agencies trying to halt the spread of the disease.

Many in the Church believe condoms increase a person’s promiscuity and that the despair behind this behavior including poverty and limited access to AIDS treatment needs to be addressed first. http://thecasualtruth.com/story/condoms-catho...

So some believe abortion is killing. Wouldn't telling your believers in an AIDS stricken country to not wear a condom be considered mass murder then? Not only spreading the disease to others but also infecting any child that may be the result of a pregnancy?

There was never an institution larger than the local church in the New Testament.

Once large controlling bodies came on the scene like the Roman catholic church and European state churches the message was perverted and we had atrocities like the crusades and the inquisition. These things were never a part of the New Testament model of small local churches. The mixing of religion and politics opened the door for the exploitation of religious people for the sake of political interests. That's not to say that people shouldn't vote their beliefs, but give the government a foot in the door of the church and they'll use it for their own purpose.They always do. The republicans use and exploit many of todays Christians while not believing a word of what the church preaches.

Wait, did I see someone saying that teaching kids and teenagers that sex is only for married couples, will stop abortions?

Religion does it all the time, growth by breeding. Catholics said birth control was a sin so more babies would be born to Catholic parents. Mormons approved of multiple wives and just about every religion promotes marrying within your own faith. Some scripture about being unevenly yoked together. Look at the Amish and their numbers. You don't see people outside begging to get in.

Its all a numbers game and if a few thousands die from disease, its still better that relying on converts. Just make more. That's why religion hates abortions as much as they do gays. Of course they hate it, it doesn't benefit them.

There was never an institution larger than the local church in the New Testament.Once large controlling bodies came on the scene like the Roman catholic church and European state churches the message was perverted and we had atrocities like the crusades and the inquisition. These things were never a part of the New Testament model of small local churches. The mixing of religion and politics opened the door for the exploitation of religious people for the sake of political interests. That's not to say that people shouldn't vote their beliefs, but give the government a foot in the door of the church and they'll use it for their own purpose.They always do. The republicans use and exploit many of todays Christians while not believing a word of what the church preaches.

I concur with your post. The Republican party has done as much damage to religion as television evangelists. I think all of these churches should give up their protective tax status when they enter the political field. Yes you have the right to vote, but too many people are swayed to vote based on their religious leaders view. Keep church and state separated and the country will survive the rest of the changes in society.

<quoted text>Religion does it all the time, growth by breeding. Catholics said birth control was a sin so more babies would be born to Catholic parents. Mormons approved of multiple wives and just about every religion promotes marrying within your own faith. Some scripture about being unevenly yoked together. Look at the Amish and their numbers. You don't see people outside begging to get in.Its all a numbers game and if a few thousands die from disease, its still better that relying on converts. Just make more. That's why religion hates abortions as much as they do gays. Of course they hate it, it doesn't benefit them.

Speaking of "growth breeding", this is a shared blog started by Vyckie Garrison, a former "Quiverfull" mom:

I listened to a great interview with her on a podcast recently. She was a pretty hardcore Quiverfull mom, cranking out 7 kids despite having certain medical conditions that made it quite dangerous to do so.

One thing that really hit me about the discussion was when the podcast host asked about women in the movement who cannot conceive or whose husbands are shooting blanks. Her answer was that those women go through hell. The purpose of a women, according to that whacko movement, is to make babies. Period, end of story. Just keep making babies. So if you can't even make one baby you are a failure. And given the fact that they believe God controls everything then if they can't make babies it means they are "not pleasing to God".

Now that is some sick, messed up head tripping right there.

Here's the podcast episode. It has some good bits about homeschooling too, and how it is basically a giant racket to sell you insurance against fear in the form of books, DVDs, and divine protection:

There was never an institution larger than the local church in the New Testament.Once large controlling bodies came on the scene like the Roman catholic church and European state churches the message was perverted and we had atrocities like the crusades and the inquisition. These things were never a part of the New Testament model of small local churches. The mixing of religion and politics opened the door for the exploitation of religious people for the sake of political interests. That's not to say that people shouldn't vote their beliefs, but give the government a foot in the door of the church and they'll use it for their own purpose.They always do. The republicans use and exploit many of todays Christians while not believing a word of what the church preaches.

First Amendment all the way. Keep the chocolate frosting off the lasagna please.

Current estimates say that 60-80% of fertilized eggs probably fail to implant and then another 15-20% of the fertilized eggs that do implant spontaneously abort.So... that gives us a 34%-16% survival rate for fertilized eggs or to flip it around God murders between 66% and 84% of all babies.Put your little white crosses up..BUT understand that for every one cross put there by humans aborting humans, add another 200 put there by god.

If you really think about it most banks sponsor places like AIM, March of Dimes, ACS, almost requiring their workers to participate not for the sake of charity, but for publicity for the bank. I know several people who work at banks and if for some reason, they would rather not participate for a certain charity, they are made to feel like a black sheep. It is considered volunteering and if your heart is not in it, or you disagree with certain thing, then you should not be made to feel as it is your duty to participate in every charity. The best charity work is the work that is done anonymously. As far as the crosses, I would think this is because it is a smaller hometown bank, I don't think you would see this at a larger bank.

The thing is that you are not really going to find anyone whom is pro abortion its a fact. You are going to find however that alot of the population is pro women. I think as well as most this should not be used as a form of birth control. It however is up to the woman in question as it is her body to do with as she pleases. I mean really if this were a post about if men could have abortions the turn around for the percent that would be okay with it would change over night. If you think other wise then you are not living in reality.

I have never heard that a condom could be murderous when they prevent many of the young folks from so many transmitted diseases and prevents the young people from having children that they don't need or would care for. If one notices that more and more grandparents are raising grandchildren due to the poor choices of their children in not having preventive sex. I say hand out the condoms in the schools churches and toss from the air, but please cover up and be safe. If you ever meet someone who has Aids you would change your mind about condoms, birth control etc.

If you really think about it most banks sponsor places like AIM, March of Dimes, ACS, almost requiring their workers to participate not for the sake of charity, but for publicity for the bank. I know several people who work at banks and if for some reason, they would rather not participate for a certain charity, they are made to feel like a black sheep. It is considered volunteering and if your heart is not in it, or you disagree with certain thing, then you should not be made to feel as it is your duty to participate in every charity. The best charity work is the work that is done anonymously. As far as the crosses, I would think this is because it is a smaller hometown bank, I don't think you would see this at a larger bank.

This is interesting. I don't think the best charity work is done anonymously, I think the best charity work is DONE. I don't care if they know who did it or not.

But I do agree with you that one should not be compelled to give. We already give through taxes, of which some portion is tantamount to charity. And I'm 100% on board with that. But if I don't want to give to an organization because I disagree with their views on some important issue then I should not be forced to do so.

<quoted text>This is interesting. I don't think the best charity work is done anonymously, I think the best charity work is DONE. I don't care if they know who did it or not.But I do agree with you that one should not be compelled to give. We already give through taxes, of which some portion is tantamount to charity. And I'm 100% on board with that. But if I don't want to give to an organization because I disagree with their views on some important issue then I should not be forced to do so.

Let me restate. I mean by giving anonymously, for example, if you know someone is in need of food, then one would take groceries and give to them and not once let anyone else know you had done so; or the opposite would, after they take the groceries would boast that they did so. I just know for a fact that there are some bank employees that are involved with just about every charity and boast about what they do, how much time and money they donate, and want to make sure other important business people in the community know what they have done and then expect their co-workers to do the same. I' m just speaking of those who may give or volunteer for the publicity for their business.

<quoted text>Let me restate. I mean by giving anonymously, for example, if you know someone is in need of food, then one would take groceries and give to them and not once let anyone else know you had done so; or the opposite would, after they take the groceries would boast that they did so. I just know for a fact that there are some bank employees that are involved with just about every charity and boast about what they do, how much time and money they donate, and want to make sure other important business people in the community know what they have done and then expect their co-workers to do the same. I' m just speaking of those who may give or volunteer for the publicity for their business.

I understand. That would annoy me too, like bragging. But I guess from my perspective I just don't care either way. If a wealthy business owner donates to charity in order to get some tax breaks and bragging rights then the money is still going to charity, and I think that is a good outcome. I don't think his irritating attitude is a bad enough problem to negate the positive effect of his giving, personally.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.